Colorado’s second-highest court last week clarified that a defendant’s name, date of birth and description as a “Caucasian male” did not combine to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the same person who had three prior drunk driving convictions.

An Arapahoe County jury convicted Dennis Herold in 2022 of felony driving under the influence. While DUI is normally a misdemeanor, it becomes a felony if the defendant has at least three prior impaired driving convictions.

Prosecutors introduced evidence that Herold had four priors from the 1980s and ’90s. Records from two of the prior offenses had Herold’s full name, date of birth, and a description of his race, sex, hair color, eye color and weight. The third offense had only Herold’s name and birthdate.

The fourth offense from 1991 included Herold’s name, birthdate and a physical description of only “Caucasian male.”

On appeal, Herold challenged whether those details were sufficient to prove he was the same Dennis Herold who was convicted in 1991. A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals concluded they were not.

“The general description of a person as a ‘Caucasian Male’ is too broad to allow a jury to determine whether the person with the prior conviction is the same person as the defendant,” wrote Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov in the May 16 opinion.

In reaching its decision, the appellate panel relied on a 2022 ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court in Gorostieta v. People. The court’s majority concluded there must be an “essential link” between the person on trial and the prior convictions. The evidence could include social security numbers, photographs, fingerprints, tattoos or testimony from those who could identify the defendant from the prior cases.

The Court of Appeals did not say whether the physical description of Herold from two of the prior convictions was sufficient because there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Herold had a third prior offense. Although the prosecution argued the prior convictions attributed to Dennis Herold were all committed in the Denver metro area, the Court of Appeals believed geographic proximity was not a substitute for a detailed physical description.

The panel vacated Herold’s felony DUI conviction, leaving him convicted of only a misdemeanor.

The case is People v. Herold.